Research Papers

Oscar Montelius and Chinese Archaeology

Authors:

Xingcan Chen,

Institute of Archaeology, CASS, CN

Magnus Fiskesjo

Dept of Anthropology, Cornell University, US

Abstract

This paper demonstrates that Oscar Montelius (1843–1921), the world-famous Swedish archaeologist, had a key role in the development of modern scientific Chinese archaeology and the discovery of China’s prehistory. We know that one of his major works, Die Methode, the first volume of his Älteren kulturperioden im Orient und in Europa, translated into Chinese in the 1930s, had considerable influence on generations of Chinese archaeologists and art historians. What has previously remained unknown, is that Montelius personally promoted the research undertaken in China by Johan Gunnar Andersson (1874–1960), whose discoveries of Neolithic cultures in the 1920s constituted the breakthrough and starting point for the development of prehistoric archaeology in China. In this paper, we reproduce, translate and discuss a long forgotten memorandum written by Montelius in 1920 in support of Andersson’s research. In this Montelius indicated his belief in the potential of prehistoric Chinese archaeology as well as his predictions regarding the discoveries about to be made. It is therefore an important document for the study of the history of Chinese archaeology as a whole.

Introduction: Montelius in China

We are all familiar with the work of Oscar Montelius (1843–1921), which
occupies a central position in the history of world archaeology. Even eight decades
after his death, exhibits in Sweden’s Museum of National Antiquities
(Historiska Museet) continue to use the ‘Montelius
System’, with Bronze Age exhibits arranged according to his six-age
schema.1 Montelius’ contributions to
archaeology were manifold, but his influence was strongest in the field of
typological research (see Daniel 1981; Åström 1995; Baudou 2012).2 His work in
this field greatly influenced Chinese archaeology, which received inspiration and
indeed sustenance from his typological work.

The main volume of Montelius’ research available in Chinese translation was
Pre-historical Archaeological Methods (Xianshi kaoguxue
fangfa lun
先史考古学方法论) originally
published by the author himself in Sweden in 1903, in German, under the title Die Methode, as the
first volume of his Die älteren Kulturperioden im Orient und in
Europa. The second volume of this work, Babylonien, Elam,
Assyrien (Montelius 1923), was in comparison ‘a specialized piece of research
whose objectives were slightly different from the more general and integrative
project of Die Methode’ (Montelius 1937 [‘Translator’s Foreword’]: 1).

Die Methode appears to have first caught the attention of Chinese
scholars in the early 1930s when Zheng Shixu and Hu Zhaochun translated the
work, under the title Archaeological Research Methods
(Kaoguxue yanjiu fa
考古学研究法). Their translation was first
published in serial form in Issues 2–6 of the first volume of the journal
World of Learning (Xueshu shijie
学术世界) in 1935, and was then published in book form the
next year (Montelius 1936) by the Shijie shuju (World Books Company). Independently, Teng Gu also
prepared a Chinese translation of Die Methode in early 1935, which
was published two years later by Shanghai’s Shangwu (Commercial) Press as
Xianshi kaoguxue fangfa lun (Montelius 1937).

The extent of the influence of these translated works on Chinese archaeology at the
time remains a topic in need of further investigation. Solely in terms of citations,
their influence was not particularly evident.3
From a methodological perspective, a number of scholars believe that typological
research work within Chinese archaeology was probably inspired by Montelius’
insights. For example, in the ‘Afterword’ to Selected
Archaeological Writings of Su Bingqi, leading contemporary
archaeologists Yu Weichao and Zhang Zhongpei observed that:

Stratigraphy and typology are the primary methodologies of modern archaeology. A
systematic typological theory was first developed by Oscar Montelius in
Die Methode, the first volume of his 1903 publication Die älteren Kulturperioden im
Orient und in Europa. Two Chinese translations of this work were
produced in the 1920s and 1930s; by the 1940s, Su Bingqi had made fundamental
contributions to this methodology’s application and development through
numerous studies which integrated novel archaeological materials and focused
particularly upon China (Yu and Zhang 1984:
310).4

In the 1920s and 1930s, scientific archaeology was just beginning to emerge in China,
and the ideals of the New Culture Movement, that included aspirations to draw on
Western science, were gaining momentum. The fact that Montelius’ typological
methodology was able to move beyond specialized archaeological journals, to be
featured in World of Learning, and to be published in two separate
book-length translations, suggests that his work was generating a substantial degree
of interest in intellectual circles at the time.5

Before the discovery in the archives of the document, which is the focus of our
paper, this was, more or less, the sum total of what we knew about Montelius’
influence on Chinese archaeology. Without this new archival discovery, we probably
would never have known that Montelius, later in his life, had taken an interest in
China, and indeed had great hopes for potential archaeological discoveries there.
Additionally, we would never have known that it was probably the encouragement of
Oscar Montelius that impelled Johan Gunnar Andersson’s (1874–1960)
transformation from renowned geologist and paleontologist to a scholar of Chinese
archaeology, who participated in numerous major and pioneering archaeological
surveys, excavations, and other research projects in China during the 1920s, in his
capacity as a member of China’s National Geological Survey (see Fiskesjö and Chen 2004; Chen 1997; Fiskesjö 2011).

The following document is a pro memoria6 authored by Montelius (1920) in
support of Andersson’s Swedish funding application for archaeological research
in China. It was found by the authors of this paper in the archives of the Museum of
Far Eastern Antiquities in Stockholm, in late September 2001, during Chen
Xingcan’s visit to the museum. The original is in Swedish. It was first
translated into English by Magnus Fiskesjö, and subsequently into Chinese by
Chen Xingcan (Chen and Fiskesjö 2003).
It is currently stored in the archives of Stockholm’s Museum of Far Eastern
Antiquities (File no. D26/138). It is reproduced in full below, followed by a
revised English translation (with words underlined by Montelius as in the original
Swedish text).

P.M. (Pro memoria)

In many countries of both the Old and the New World it has been possible to
show:

That there once was a very long period, when metals were entirely unknown, and
all weapons and tools were manufactured from stone, bone, and the like. Within
the scope of this period – which generally must have had a length of
several tens of thousands of years – one can discern an older (longer)
part, when all artefacts were made in simple forms, and unpolished, and when
culture was still very low, and then a more recent period (shorter, but several
thousand years long) when artefacts were increasingly given more beautiful
shapes, when work in flint was often polished, and when culture clearly
advanced. The former period is called the older Stone Age
(or the ‘Paleolithic’ period); the later part is known under the
name of the younger Stone Age (or the
‘Neolithic’ period).

That towards the end of the younger stone age one metal, copper, was increasingly
used in the manufacture of weapons and tools, all the while a great deal of
other weapons and tools made from stone were still in use. This last part of the
younger stone age, when copper was known, is usually called the
Copper Age.

That this period, when copper was used unmixed (without the addition of another
metal), was followed by a new period, in which the alloying of copper with tin
yielded bronze, which has had such importance in cultural history, and in which
this mix of metals was used to manufacture exquisite weapons and tools. This
period is called the Bronze Age.

That finally iron was discovered, and ultimately displaced the bronze, so that
people made their weapons and tools from iron or, properly, from steel. This
period, which was begun at that point and in reality still continues, is called
the Iron Age.

It is extremely likely that, in general terms, a similar development
has occurred in China.

Surely it cannot be a cause of surprise that this cultural development has not
been demonstrated within the country of China, and, if as a consequence of this,
many people still imagine, that iron in China became known as early as bronze,
or the like.

But everyone realizes what outstanding importance it would have for the knowledge
of the history of human culture if the same development as that seen in the rest
of the world had indeed taken place within such a large and important area as
that of the Chinese realm, within which close to one third of all of
earth’s population is living. Or more correctly, how wonderful it would
be, if China was not in this respect like the other
countries.

As long as there was not, in Europe, a large accumulated material of memories
from different parts of the long ‘prehistoric’ period, and, above
all, as long as not enough finds were known – along
with secure knowledge of the circumstances of the finds – opinions were
divided with regard to the cultural development that has just been sketched, or
rather, hinted at. Many firmly held that iron had been in use not only all the
way through the time when weapons and tools were made from bronze, but also
before that time.

Here in the Nordic countries it was discovered early on – more than a
hundred years ago – that the development really had taken place in the way
that has been described here, and now, after becoming familiar with a
very large number of secure finds, all scholars,
including those outside of the Nordic countries, are unanimous in the view that
this Nordic position is correct.

In this present respect, China in our day offers a very great similarity to
Western Asia, Egypt, Greece, and Italy of 40 to 50 years ago. In these
countries, just as in China, there are so many awesome art works left from
antiquity, that the seemingly worthless memories of prehistoric times have
attracted the attention of the collectors only occasionally, and as a result of
this, only few of them have been preserved.

But just as today, after energetic collection, and thanks to scientific
excavations, the truth has become known about the above-mentioned Western
countries’ early cultural history, the Chinese problem may be solved, too,
if Professor J. G. Andersson is put in the position of making collections and
undertaking excavations according to the plan which he has put forward in his
pro memoria.

I am convinced of this even more, because his plan seems to me very well
considered, and the project would have as a leader a scientist of Professor
Andersson’s high rank.

Few words are needed to convince us here in Sweden for us to realize of what
great importance it would have for our small people if Swedish
scientists were to be recognized for spreading light over the oldest history
of the ancient cultural country of China, and if those Swedish
scientists’ work were to have been made possible by powerful support
from other open-minded Swedish men.

(In handwriting:) Stockholm, on the 31st of May, 1920.

(Signature:) Oscar Montelius.

Regardless of whether the document in the archives is an original or a copy, evidence
ensures that this pro memoria was indeed written by Oscar Montelius
and sent to Johan Gunnar Andersson. First, the document features Montelius’
signature. Second, another letter which Andersson (no
date) later addressed to an unidentified Chinese scholar by the name of
Chang clearly drew on this same document.

For the sake of comparison, this letter is also featured below:

D.26/138

Dear Mr. Chang,

Professor Oscar Montelius, the famous Swedish archaeologist, has sent me a short
note on the different prehistoric ages and the early use of metals in Europe.
His communication is in Swedish but as it may prove of some interest for your
present researches, I have the pleasure of herewith to forward you a translation
of it:

‘In the Old as well as in the New World the following facts have been well
established:

1. There was, in the early history of mankind, a very long time when the metals
were entirely unknown, and all arms and tools were made of stone, bone, or other
materials ready at hand. Within this epoch (that in most parts of the world
evidently had a length for several tens of thousands of years), it has been
established in several countries an earlier longer period, when all implements
were very simple in shape and unpolished and the whole culture was still very
primitive, and a later shorter period (duration some few thousand years), when
the implements gradually obtained more beautiful shape, when the flint
implements were often polished and the culture underwent noticeable successive
progress. The former period is called the Old (Paleolithic) Stone Age, the
latter the Young (Neolithic) Stone Age.

2. Towards the end of the Young Stone Age, a metal, copper, became commonly used
for the manufacturing of arms and tools but at the same time a great number of
stone implements were still in use. This latest part of the Young Stone Age,
when copper was already known, has been called the Copper Age.

3. This period, when copper alone was used without any admixture, was followed by
a new time, when the metal tools became highly improved by alloying the copper
with tin. This alloy, bronze, has played a rather unparalleled role in the
history of man, and arms and tools of excellent shape date from this period, the
Bronze Age.

4. Finally iron was discovered and gradually displaced the bronze. The arms and
tools were made of iron or more properly [of] steel. This period which extends
to the present day has been called the Iron Age.

It is very likely that China also experienced a similar course of cultural
development.’

In another letter, Professor Montelius furthermore provided a few pieces of more
detailed data which you may find interesting:

‘In the pre-classical era in central Italy, we can divide the bronze age
and iron age respectively into five and six successive periods, the last of
which came to an end before 500 [BCE]. The iron age’s first period was a
time of transition from bronze implements to iron implements, with weapons and
tools made from both bronze and iron coexisting. In the second period, a
substantial number of bronze items remained, but iron had already become the
primary material. During the third period, bronze items became increasingly
scarce, and by the time of its conclusion, bronze implements had completely
disappeared.

The first period of the iron age in central Italy began around 1100 [BCE], and
its third period concluded in 800 [BCE]: within just 300 years of the appearance
of iron implements, bronze ware had completely faded out of use.

A similar pattern can be seen in Sweden and other Germanic countries. Following
the introduction of iron, bronze implements continued to be used in varying
degrees for a few centuries before disappearing.’

I hope that you will find this all to be of interest.

Yours truly

The ideas expressed in the first half of this unsigned copy of a letter to a certain
Mr. Chang obviously came from Montelius’ pro memoria, which
Andersson refers to as ‘a short note’. The second half, as Andersson
acknowledges, is quoted from another letter, as Montelius’ pro
memoria made no mention of the chronology of the Bronze Age in Europe.
However, we have yet to find any such letter from Montelius in Andersson’s
archives, nor any related letters from Andersson to Montelius.

The above letter is also included in File no. D26/138. The original letter is undated
and written in English. Its final lines are handwritten by Andersson: however,
perhaps because the document on file is a copy, or even more likely a rough draft,
it is not signed, and there are multiple revisions marked throughout the text. As
the letter was clearly written after Montelius’ pro memoria
of May 31, 1920, but was also placed within the same file, it was likely written
sometime in the second half of 1920. The letter’s employment of terminology
suggests that it was addressed to a fellow expert in related fields. The Mr. Chang
to whom it is addressed is most probably the geologist H. T. Chang (Hongzhao Zhang,
sometimes written H. C. Chang), although there may have been other archaeologists or
historians by the same last name.

H. T. Chang was a Japanese-trained geologist, who worked in China in the early
twentieth century, and who had frequent contact with J. G. Andersson during his time
in Beijing. While there is no direct evidence to prove conclusively that
Andersson’s letter was addressed to this H. T. Chang, Andersson mentioned
Chang in many of his own writings, and H. T. Chang himself presented a detailed
exposition of the Three-Age System and of Andersson’s archaeological
discoveries in his own work (see H. T. Chang
[Hongzhao Zhang] 1923, 1927; also
cited in Needham and Wang 1959; and by Andersson 1923a: 44 and 1923b: 44; see also Andersson
1921, 1929).7

Andersson’s decision to seek advice from Oscar Montelius, prior to
Montelius’ death, is an established historical fact. However, we now know that
Andersson had also previously sought assistance from Montelius in his search for
research materials. This is evident in a letter written in English to his
longstanding Swedish supporter and financier Axel Lagrelius on February 2, 1922
(Andersson 1922a). Lagrelius was a central
figure in the China Research Committee (also known as
the China Committee, and, in Swedish, Kinakommittén, or
Kinafonden), and a renowned Swedish entrepreneur
who, on account of his position as a Marshal of the Royal Court, had a particularly
close relationship with Swedish royalty and accompanied the Swedish Crown Prince on
his visit to China in 1926 (on these events, and Andersson’s letter to the
Swedish Crown Prince see Fiskesjö and Chen
2003: 10–17; see also Lewenhaupt
1928; Johansson 2009, 2012).

The China Research Committee was founded by Lagrelius on September 15, 1919, and
original members comprised Lagrelius, Admiral Palander, and a renowned economic
geographer by the name of Gunnar Andersson (no relation to Johan Gunnar Andersson).
Its primary and original objective was to support Andersson’s work collecting
geological and paleontological samples in China (see Andersson 1929; Almgren et
al. 1932).8

In the 1922 letter, Andersson sought Lagrelius’ help in purchasing books:
noting that Ture J. Arne9 had previously sent
him archaeology books, and he hoped that others might make similar contributions by
sending books that were readily available in Sweden. If he was able to collect such
donations, he said, he could donate these books to China’s National Geological
Survey or to a Chinese university. On February 17, 1922, he wrote another letter to
Lagrelius (Andersson 1922b) noting that a list
of desirable books had already been sent to T. J. Arne, adding that Oscar
Montelius’ books had been donated to the Royal Swedish Academy of Letters,
History and Antiquities (Vitterhetsakademien) but there would still be extra copies
that he could send Andersson. Throughout his time in China, Andersson frequently
sought books and other materials in the fields archaeology and paleontology: his
contacts in this search included the American Museum of Natural History, German
archaeologist Hubert Schmidt,10 T. J. Arne,
Lagrelius, and many others.11 Yet it remains
unknown whether this letter from Montelius, cited by Andersson, was in fact the same
letter in which Montelius introduced his periodization of European archaeology, as
these letters have yet to be discovered. We also do not know whether
Montelius’ extra books were ever sent to Beijing. Despite these uncertainties,
this correspondence is further direct evidence indicating Montelius’ influence
on Chinese archaeology during his lifetime.

Montelius and Andersson’s Archaeological Discoveries

We can now proceed to ask what aspects of Chinese archaeology captured Oscar
Montelius’ interest, and why; and what direct influence did his initiative
exert upon Chinese archaeology? With the discovery of Montelius’ pro
memoria, we can now at least be certain that the Stone Age and its
artefacts had come to Andersson’s attention prior to his discovery, in 1921,
of Yangshao culture, as Andersson himself indeed alludes to in his own publications
(Andersson 1920, 1973).12 Due to the
limitations of his prior archaeological knowledge and training, and given the link
between Montelius and the Crown Prince (who was a significant supporter of
Andersson’s work, and who was tutored in archaeology by Montelius) it is
highly likely that Andersson sought the advice of Oscar Montelius, and hoped that
Montelius’ support would help to ensure support and funding for archaeological
work in China. It is also probable that Montelius’ support did indeed play a
central role in mobilizing Swedish financial support for Andersson, and helped to
propel new research as such. Indeed, Andersson’s archaeological research plan
appears to have first taken shape around the time of Chinese New Year in 1920. His
previous plans for paleontological collecting in China, such as one major outline
dated August 1, 1918,13 make no mention of
archaeological work. Then, based upon his and his Chinese colleagues’
discovery of Stone Age stone implements in February 1920, Andersson published
‘Stone Implements of Neolithic Type in China’ (Andersson 1920), signaling an enhanced interest on
Andersson’s part in delving into Neolithic archaeology, a subject dramatically
different from the paleontology and geology investigations which he had pursued
since arriving in China in 1914 on the invitation of the new National Geological
Survey. In the winter of 1920, Andersson first discovered stone implements in the
village of Yangshao, and in the following year, he participated in two formal
excavations at Yangshao village in Henan Province and Shaguotun Township in Jinxi
County, Liaoning Province – these events officially marked his transition to
archaeology (see Chen 1997; see also Fiskesjö and Chen 2004).

Even following this major transition in 1921, Andersson still had a special place in
his heart for paleontology. However, his plans to continue to pursue the collecting
of vertebrate fossils in Kansu (Gansu) in 1923 failed to occur, and in the meantime,
he had discovered dozens of cultural heritage sites related to the previously
unknown prehistoric Yangshao culture. Of this time Andersson said: ‘In fact
that summer’s work in Kansu was the turning point in my life, and definitely
diverted my interest from geology and paleontology to the study of prehistoric
remains’ (Andersson 1929: 22–23).
In the same text he also recalled that: ‘during the early years of my
collecting campaign, 1918–1920, my interest was centered upon fossil mammals,
whereas from 1921 to the end of my travelling period in 1924, my interest and energy
was increasingly absorbed by archaeology’ (Andersson 1929: 24).14

Andersson always remained a scientist with particularly broad interests, who was
without fail fascinated by any fossils, or cultural relics related to humankind as a
whole. This passion was the decisive factor in many of his discoveries (Karlgren 1961; Mateer and Lucas 1985), such as that of quartz deposits in Zhoukoudian,
and it was Andersson’s identification of the potential of this site for
paleoanthropological discoveries, which later led to the discovery of ‘Peking
Man’. In particular, the breakthrough discovery of the previously unknown
prehistoric cultures at Yangshao and elsewhere carried profound significance for
modern China.

In addition to Andersson’s own personal research interests and passions, it was
probably Montelius’ enthusiastic assessment of the potential value and
prospects of archaeological work in China that was another key factor in his shift
in careers. Montelius’ glowing comments likely strengthened the determination
of this world-renowned geologist and paleontologist to make the transition to
archaeology. One can easily imagine the impact of Montelius’ pro
memoria, in which China’s archaeological potential, described at
the time as virgin territory for archaeologists, is compared to that of Western
Asia, Egypt, and Italy of four or five decades earlier. Montelius was indicating
that with just a little effort, the most astounding of archaeological results could
be attained. Such predictions, particularly coming from such a pre-eminent
archaeologist, were certain to boost Andersson’s confidence and reaffirm his
resolve to pursue archaeology.

Moreover, the Three-Age System, used to describe the development of humanity’s
material culture, comprising Stone, Bronze, and Iron Ages, was first applied
scientifically to archaeological remains in Scandinavia,15 and had subsequently been confirmed in studies throughout
Europe and surrounding areas. Nevertheless, at the time of Montelius’
pro memoria, the Three-Age System had yet to be put to the test
in China, where modern archaeology had barely been introduced, and where the
conception of the past was still largely organized in terms of imperial dynasties
and pre-imperial cultural heroes as recorded in Classical Chinese texts (cf. Fiskesjö and Chen 2012).

Montelius thus noted (in his pro memoria) that tracing the
development of material civilization in the ‘large and important area …
of the Chinese realm, within which close to one third of all of earth’s
population is living’ was of the utmost importance for ‘the knowledge of
human cultural history’. Such comments demonstrate Oscar Montelius’
boundless passion for understanding the process of human cultural development as a
whole, as well as his extraordinary foresight and vision in the field of
archaeology. While this letter itself was not responsible for introducing the
seriation of human material culture into China (cf. Yu 1983), Montelius’ affirmation of the potential significance of
re-discovering the Three-Age System in China nevertheless had an extraordinary
impact on the subsequent development of Chinese archaeology.

Despite the brevity of his comments, Montelius unambiguously emphasized the
importance of China’s ancient civilization, as well as the immense value of
researching and discovering this ancient civilization for the ‘small
people’ of Sweden. This comment shows considerable foresight, for the
contributions of Swedish scholars in the early history of Chinese archaeology were
indeed unmatched. As these contributions began with J. G. Andersson, they are in
many respects derived from the open-minded vision of Montelius himself (Fiskesjö and Chen 2003; Lewenhaupt 1928; Johansson 2009, 2012;
Mateer and Lucas 1985; and Fiskesjö 2011).16

Montelius did not have any personal scholarly investment in confirming the Three-Age
System in China. As he said in his pro memoria: ‘surely it
cannot be a surprise that this cultural development has not been demonstrated within
the country of China, and, if as a consequence of this, many people still imagine,
that iron in China became known as early as bronze, or the like’. Upon
examination, it turned out that iron did not appear contemporaneously with bronze in
China: nevertheless, it did become apparent that the Bronze Ages of China and Europe
were completely different phenomena. The representative artefacts of each,
sacrificial vessels in China, and weapons and tools in Europe, stand in stark
contrast to one another, reflecting the divergent types of civilization that emerged
in the East and the West. Since then archaeology has greatly contributed to the
understanding of these differences (see Chang
1999; Fiskesjö 2003; Sherratt 2006).

Based on his correspondence with Andersson, it seems that Montelius’ theories
about the Three-Age System of material culture, and his seriation of European
cultures, may have been unacknowledged influences on Andersson’s periodization
of prehistoric cultures in China and his corresponding division of ages. This is
particularly notable in Andersson’s six-age theory of cultural development in
Kansu, which classified the pre-historical cultures of the region into neat and
uniform periods of exactly three hundred years (Andersson 1925; 1973: 211).17 This structure bears a clear mark of
inspiration derived from Montelius’ periodization of European culture.

Of course, Montelius’ primary influence on Andersson was probably through his
publications, rather than through their private correspondence alone. Oscar
Montelius passed away in 1921, and ten years later, in his most famous and popular
work on his Chinese discoveries, The Children of the Yellow Earth,
Andersson (1973: 211) once again cited
Montelius, as follows:

Among the Chinese socketed bronze celts (…), there is one type which bears
such a striking resemblance to the modern iron ‘pen’ (…) that
there can be no doubt that they have a common origin. The resemblance is
complete, except that with the bronze celt is more slender and more elongated,
which was probably due to the fact that it was not an agricultural implement but
rather a weapon or a votive object.

Montelius has among his typological series described the complicated but unbroken
sequence of evolutionary steps between the simple Neolithic stone celt and the
gracefully shape and richly decorated axes of the Bronze age.

We do not yet possess such a complete typological series for China, but I think
that I am justified in drawing attention to a type of stone celt (…),
which, to judge by its form, may possibly be the prototype of the Chinese
socketed celts (Andersson 1973: 211).

We note that Andersson, in his famous publication where he introduced the
breakthrough discovery of a Neolithic era in China, ‘An Early Chinese
Culture’ (Andersson 1923a, 1923b), presented a detailed analysis of
whether the Yangshao Culture, first discovered in Honan (Henan) Province, was indeed
a Neolithic culture. Although Andersson makes no mention of Montelius’
pro memoria, he cited:

‘a powerful impetus to follow up the initial discoveries … the
decision by the Directors of the National Geological Survey Dr. V. K. Ting and
Dr. W. H. Wong that amongst the existing scientific institutions of the Chinese
government, the Geological Survey is best prepared to carry on these field
researches in strictly topographic and stratigraphic manner’.

But Montelius’ influence is quite apparent in Andersson’s differentiation
of the Stone Age and Bronze Age. Of course, the Three-Age System of human material
culture had already become common knowledge throughout Scandinavian academia at the
time, and Andersson’s approach probably derived from both Montelius’
published works, and his correspondence with him. In any case, Andersson writes
that:

The famous explorer of the chronology of the Bronze Age, Oscar Montelius, whose
death science has recently had to deplore, has, in his fundamental work on the
typological method, given an admirable exposé of the intricate but unbroken
European series of transitions from the simple stone celt of Neolithic times to
the graceful and richly decorated metal celt of the Bronze Age (Andersson 1923a: 6).

Andersson noted that ‘no such series is so far known from China’, but
gave detailed consideration to the new breakthrough discoveries and all the
comparable implements, including those still preserved by everyday use in the same
regions of North China, in his time. He recalled the tentative opinions previously
formed by Chinese and foreign scholars, such as Berthold Laufer and Ryuzo Torii,
regarding the existence of a Chinese ‘Stone Age’ in what is now China
(Andersson 1923a: 11–12), ahead of
the Yangshao discoveries that now unquestionably established the existence of such a
period – just as Montelius had predicted.

However, Andersson left open the question of the day: that is, whether it was the
forebears of the Chinese, or some form of ‘barbarians’ who had created
these previously unknown industries and artefacts (but he leant heavily in favour of
a Chinese connection). He answered the question of the ‘age’ of the
Yangshao remains with a detailed discussion that included the following reference to
an intervention by Yuan Fuli, the Chinese geologist assigned to the project by the
National Geological Survey:

… In its general composition the Yang Shao site gives the impression of a
complete late Neolithic culture. If we compare the material which we obtained
from the Honan site with the collections from the famous Neolithic stations in
Europe, we will find that all the essential elements of the latter are present
in the Honan site, viz: stone axes, adzes, and knives, stone and bone arrow
points for the men, the hunters and fighters, stone armelets serving as
adornment for the women and neat little needles for their hand-work.

A people which had ready access to metal would never had taken the trouble to
shape all these tools of inferior material. During our five weeks of extensive
and careful excavations we never met with a single metal object in
situ. On one of our last days at this site a mischievous
village-boy pretended to have found a bronze arrow point at one of our
excavation places, and I was inclined to accept his statement with some
reservation. But Mr. Yuan went into the matter with more determination and soon
found out that the arrow point had been brought from a place N. of Yang Shao
Tsun, probably from some Han tomb, and that the little fraud had been attempted
in the hope of gaining a few more coppers for the metal object by saying that it
had come from our beloved ‘ashy earth,’ the characteristic soil of
the culture stratum (Andersson 1923a,
1923b: 28–29).

Oscar Montelius and his work clearly left a deep impression on Johan Gunnar
Andersson18. As noted above, up until now
this influence was only noted as traces of Montelius’ methodological insights
in Andersson’s scholarly work. However, the pro memoria
featured in this paper (and perhaps the still undiscovered correspondence between
Montelius and Andersson) clearly demonstrates:

Montelius’ essential role in Andersson’s transition from geology
to archaeology, as well as

Montelius’ interest in Chinese archaeology and his direct influence on
its early development.

As such, these documents are priceless references in the history and development of
Chinese archaeology, and are thus worthy of our close attention.

Notes

1Specifically: Age I, 1800–1500 BCE; Age II, 1500–1300 BCE; Age III,
1300–1100 BCE; Age IV, 1100–900 BCE; Age V, 900–600 BCE; and
Age VI, 600–500 BCE. (Based upon notes taken by Chen Xingcan during a
visit to the exhibition on September 25, 2001).

2The most comprehensive biography to date (in Swedish) is by Evert Baudou (2012), a book that is, however, silent on
the issue of Montelius’ influence beyond Europe.

3On the influence of Montelius’ ideas on prominent early Chinese
archaeologists, see for example: Zhang Guangzhi and Li Guangmo 1990 on Li Ji (also Li Ji 1990), often described as the
‘father’ of Chinese archaeology; also see Su Bingqi 1984. On the emerging awareness in wider
intellectual circles of this methodology, also see Teng Gu’s
‘Translator’s Foreword’ and ‘Translator’s
Introductory Remarks’ in Montelius 1937.

5On the general historical background and the specifics of the beginnings of
Chinese archaeology in the 1920s, see Fiskesjö and Chen 2004; for further discussions see Chen
1997; and Fiskesjö 2011.

6Pro memoria: In the Swedish context, this refers to a memo, or
circular, of considerable significance.

7The ‘BCE’ annotations included in the text were added by the
authors.

8At the time of the founding of the China Research Committee, Admiral Palander was
its president and Gunnar Andersson its committee secretary. When Palander died
in 1921, Sweden’s H. R. H. Crown Prince Gustaf Adolf took over as
president. When Gunnar Andersson died in 1928, Bernhard Karlgren, the renowned
Sinologist and professor at the University of Gothenburg [Göteborg] (and,
from 1938, Andersson’s successor as Director of the Museum of Far Eastern
Antiquities) took over as secretary. On the history of this committee in
relation to the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities see Fiskesjö forthcoming [2014]; see also Note 13
below.

9Ture Arne was a Swedish archaeologist later entrusted by Andersson to research
excavated materials from Henan, China, see Arne 1925; for more information refer to the sources cited in Note 5.

10Schmidt discovered the archaeological site of Anau, and was cited by Andersson in
his pioneering piece ‘An Early Chinese Culture’ (Andersson 1923a, 1923b: 39–40); and in later publications (notably
Andersson 1943) where he reflected on
the similarities of prehistoric ceramics from Central Asia and that which he
himself had discovered in China (see Fiskesjö and Chen 2004).

11Observations based on files stored in the archives of the Museum of Far Eastern
Antiquities. Also see Andersson 1921:
4–12 in which Andersson notes that ‘the greatest difficulty for
scientific work within the survey has been the lack of literature’. As a
result, one of the survey’s primary missions was a constant search for
contributions and donated materials from both public and private donors.

12A detailed chronological bibliography of all of Andersson’s work is
available, at no cost, in draft form from Magnus Fiskesjö:
magnus.fiskesjo@cornell.edu.

14Andersson went to China as an accomplished and prominent geologist and
paleontologist, but because of his discoveries he returned to Sweden as an
archaeologist, and he very much remained so, until his death. Besides the museum
directorship he was also formally appointed to a personal professorship in East
Asian archaeology at Stockholm University. This apparently caused some
consternation among his geologist colleagues, who felt they had
‘lost’ him; on the other hand, the fine-arts collectors surrounding
the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities later took to, once again, labeling him a
geologist, evidently to diminish his role in the museum’s foundation and
in the first chapters of its history. On these aspects of Andersson’s
later career, including how he came to be largely forgotten in post-World War II
Swedish archaeology, see the sources cited in Note 5 above; also Fiskesjö
forthcoming [2014].

15Speculation that humankind had passed through such stages was known both from
Western antiquity (as in De Rerum Natura by Titus Lucretius
Carus, ca. 99–55 BC), and from ancient China (Yuan Kang’s quoting of
Feng Huzi in Yuan’s Yue jue shu 越绝书
also from the 1st century AD – ages that also included jade, in addition
to stone, bronze and iron). In Europe, of course, the Three-Age System was
introduced into archaeology by the Danish scholar Christian Jürgensen
Thomsen (1788–1865), who used it first, to reorganize museum collections;
and by his compatriot Jens Jacob Asmussen Worsaae (1821–1885) who
operationalized it as stratigraphy in modern field archaeology (cf. Ole Klindt-Jensen 1975); it was then
applied more widely by Montelius and others.

16Andersson was, generally speaking, a scholar who kept his distance from
nationalist sentiments. Nevertheless, one can still detect within his letters
his personal investment in Swedish research on China and his complex and
conflicted attitude towards America and other Western countries’
competitive collecting in China. Perhaps such sentiments made Montelius’
comment on the significance of researching the ancient civilization of China for
the ‘small people’ of Sweden have an even more powerful effect on
Andersson. See Andersson’s letter to the Crown Prince of Sweden, with
commentary, September 4, 1921, in
Fiskesjö and Chen 2003.

17For a comparative discussion of Andersson’s manuscript
Archaeological Discoveries in Kansu and the published
version of Preliminary Report on Archaeological Research in
Kansu, see Chen and Fiskesjö 2004.

18For Andersson’s final analysis summing up his archaeological research, see
Andersson 1943; and for discussion see
Fiskesjö and Chen 2004.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Editor of the Bulletin of the History of
Archaeology, as well as its anonymous reviewers, who helped us make
several important improvements to the text. We also express our appreciation of Dr.
Yun-kuen Lee for taking the time to read and comment on an original draft of this
paper. We thank Kevin Carrico, now of Stanford University, for first translating the
article into English from a Chinese version issued as ‘Mengdeliusi yu Zhongguo
kaoguxue’ (Oscar Montelius and Chinese Archaeology; see Chen and Fiskesjö 2003). That text has been revised and
expanded in this new English-language version.

Baudou, E (2012). Oscar Montelius: Om tidens återkomst och kulturens
vandringar (Oscar Montelius: On the Return of Time and the Wanderings of
Culture). Stockholm: Royal Swedish Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities &
Atlantis.

Johansson, P (2009). Rescuing History From the Nation: The Untold Origins of the
Stockholm Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities. Journal of the History of Collections 21(1): 111–123, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jhc/fhn030

Mateer, N J and Lucas, S G (1985). Swedish Vertebrate Paleontology in China: A History of the
Lagrelius Collection. Bulletin of the Geological Institutions of the University of Uppsala,
New Series 11: 1–24.

Needham, J and Wang, Ling (1959). Science and Civilization in China In: Mathematics and the Science of the Heavens and the Earth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 3

Sherratt, A (2006). The Trans-Eurasian Exchange: The Prehistory of Chinese Relations
with the West In: Mair, V. H. ed. Contact and Exchange in the Ancient World. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, pp. 30–61.